Hacker News Reader

Allow me to explain the metaphor. When two sides shoot at each other that is called a war. When one side shoots the other that is called a massacre. Hence if another side starts shooting at you and isn't willing to negotiate, massacre or war are your two choices.

In "cultural war", this would correspond to one side trying to keep moving their positions forward. The either side either puts up a fight or they don't.

View on HN

You've explained further proving that the original statement was wrong. Nobody is shooting at anyone.

And there's no culture war, because war involves death, bombs and stuff. Right, language, we find it useful to use concepts that don't literally apply because they might help us see similarities.

In that case, you don't need literal shooting and trenches. You can talk of wealth redistribution, where "we'll take from A and give to B" is an attack on A. It doesn't involve guns immediately (though it will if A doesn't "voluntarily" give up the goods), but it's useful as an analogy. What the commenters seem to imply is that, if A does not fight back (again, not literally with guns, but politically), they'll be massacred (again, not literally), their interests will not be considered at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com